RAMACHANDRA IYER, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records in I.D. No. 1 of 1958, on the file of the Labour Court, Madras, and quashing the award dated 30th June 195S passed therein, in so far as it directed the reinstatement of Ramachandran in the petitioner's services.
(2.) THE petitioner, Aruna Metal Industries, is a firm carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of barss and copper utensils. On 1st November 1955, the petitioner entertained one Ramachandran to work in the factory as a cooly. Sometime thereafter, the Inspector of Factories, evidently in the course of the inspection of petitioner's factory saw the worker and felt a doubt as to whether he was an adult, adolescent or a child. Section 67 of the Factories Act prohibits the employment of young children in the factories. Section 68, however, permits a child who has completed 14 years of age or an adolescent to work therein, if a certificate of fitness has been granted to him under Section 69; Section 69 provides for the issue of a certificate of fitness to a young person. If in the opinion of the surgeon the young person had completed his fourteenth year and is also physically fit he should certify him as fit for work in the factory as a child. If he has completed 15 years and fit for a full day's work he could issue a certificate of fitness to work as an adult. Ramachandran did not possess any proof of age. The manager of the factory therefore sent him to the Stanley hospital, Madras for ascertaining his age. On 26th March 1958, the certifying surgeon issued a certificate, stating that, in his opinion, the age of Ramchandran, as nearly as could be ascertained from his examination, was 16 years, and that he was fit for employment in the factory as an adult. On the strength of the certificate, Ramachandran was retained in the service as adolescent worker. In the meanwhile the employer submitted draft standing orders for his establishment in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946, defining the conditions of employment in the factory. The Standing Orders were certified by the Commissioner of Labour on 18th January 1957 and they came into force one month thereafter. Clause 25 of the Standing Orders stated: - 'No one who is below 18 years of age shall be allowed to work in the factory.' It is obvious that if Ramachandran was below the age of 18 on 18th February 1937, he could not continue in service. Besides Ramachandran there were other workers who were similarly situated. The management put up a general notice, calling upon the concerned workers to prove their respective ages, to find out whether they could be retained consistently with the Standing Orders. No individual notices however were issued to the workers; there was no response from the workers for the general notice. Thereupon, the management sent 15 workers, including Ramachandran, to the surgeon, Stanley Hospital, Madras for medical examination and for certificate as to the correct age of each worker. The surgeon sent a report only with regard to two of the fifteen workers, staling that they were 18 years old but there was no mention in the Communication about Ramachandran. The report how ever contained a note that only young person who had completed 14th year, but not 18th year, stood m need of certificate, and that adults need not be sent for medical examination. Presumably the surgeon was of the opinion that the workers other than the two mentioned by him were adults. It however appears that the employer did not understand the implication of the communication in that light. The worker stated that he was actually running his 20th year but no proof was forthcoming. The management proceeded on the footing that he was loss than 18 years of age and on 21st February 1957, terminated his services under, Clause 25 of the Standing Orders. One month's wages plus gratuity and other benefits earned, were paid to him. The worker was also informed that his claim for re -employment would be considered after he completed 18 years of age. Sometime after the termination, of his service, Ramachandran was able to obtain from the Corporation of Madras an extract from the birth register stating that a male child was born on 6th March 1936 to Veerappan, his father. The Labour Court has held and that finding is not disputed, that the certificate relates to the birth of Ramachandran. It may, therefore, be taken as proved that the worker had completed the age of 18 when he was discharged from service. The cause of the worker was taken up by the Aruna Metal Industries Workers Union. The employer was requested to reconsider the order in the light of the proof of age available but that met with no response. Efforts at conciliation proved futile. An industrial dispute was, thereupon, raised, and by G. O. Ms. No. 8 Department of Industries, Labour and Co -operation, dated 2nd January 1958, the State Government referred to the Labour Court, Madras, the question whether the discharge of the three workers (among Ramachandran was one) was justified and if not the computation of the relief to which they would be entitled.
(3.) AS stated earlier, the Labour Court held that, at the time of discharge, the worker was more than 18 years of age. It also held that the general notice calling upon the worker to submit proof of his age was not sufficient and that the management should have given further opportunity to the worker before discharging him, particularly when the certificates granted by the surgeon were not decisive. These findings would have been sufficient to adjudicate on the reference. But the Labour Court proceeded further and stated that the management could not be said Jo have acted mala fide or with ulterior motives in discharging the worker. On these findings, the Labour Court directed the management to reinstate Ramachandran in service but without back wages as the employer acted bona fide.;